Doctrines, History of (Germ. Dogmengetchu^), special branch of Historical Theology. 1. The conception and the definition of History of bristian doctrines depend upon the conception and sfinition of what constitutes a Christian doctrine logma). For evangelical Christians, who believe that )thing should be received as Christian doctrine but hat is clearly taught in the Word of God, the his- >iy of doctrine is a liistory of the efforts made by the- logians and religious denominations to develop and tiape the substance of the Christian faith into doctrinal Atements ; of deviations from the pure teachings of le Bible ; and of the efforts to restore and defend the aeology of the Bible. Roman Catholics, who believe 1 the sole infallibility of their Church, and deny that ^e has ever added anything to the teachings of Jesus, efine history of doctrine as a scientific statement of the uinner in which the several doctrines of the Church ave been discussed, developed, and, at last, authorita- ively defined. To the Rationalist, who does not be- ieve in the hnmutabUity of the word of the Bible, the istory of doctrines is nothing but a history of the doc- j[inal controversies in the Christian denominations, '"rom the stand-point of evangelical theologians, the listory of doctrines has an apologetic character with re- (u^ to Bible theology ; the Roman Catholic theologians <^e it an apology of all the doctrines defined by the
DOCTRINES, HISTORY OF 848 DOCTRINES, HISTORT OF
centary; Purification by Parties. 6. To the present time; Purification by Science. JOie/btA (High-Church Lutheran) divides as follows :
1. Age of Formation
of Dootrinea.
2. Age of Symbolical
Unitv. 8. Age of Completion. 4. '' '* DiMolatioii.
Greek.
Rom.Cath. Protestant
7
Analytic.
Synthetic Systematic.
Theology.
Anthropology.
Soteriology.
Church.
Botaikranz Qn his Encyhhp. 2d edit. p. 259) makes, according to the philosophico-dialectic categories, the following division : 1. Period of Analytic Knowledge, of substantial feeling (Greek Church). 2. Period of Synthetic Knowledge, of pure objectivity (Rom. Cath. Church). 8. Period of Systematic Knowledge, which combines the analysis and synthesis in their unity, and manifests itself in the stages of symbolical ortho- doxy, of subjective belief and unbelief, and in the idea of speculative theology (Protestant Church).
6. The idtal of a history of doctrines is given as fol- lows by Dr. H. B. Smith {BiblwtAeca Sacra, iv, 560 sq.) : *' It should be the object of a history of doctrines to give in the truest possible manner the order in which divine truth has been unfolded in the history of the Church. It must trace down the whole course of doctrinal discussion, give the leading characteristics of each epoch, as distinguished from all others, and at last show just where the world now stands in the dis- cussion of the problems which Christianity has pre- sented to it It should be a faithful mirror to the whole doctrinal history of the Church. It must inter- pret each writer according to the sense of the age in which he lived, and not bring in subsequent views and modem notions to explain the meaning which an an- cient writer gave to a phrase or do^ma. It must show what are the points of difference in the reiterated con- troversies about the same doctrine. It must carefully distinguish the theological and systematic spirit of the different ages of the Church, and not force a subse- quent development upon an antecedent sra. It must bring out into clear relief the influential personages of each age, and, in exhibiting their systems, distin- gubh between the peculiar notions of the individual and the general spirit of his times. It must show how controversies about one series of doctrines have modi- fied the views held respecting other doctrines ; how each doctrine has acquired a new aspect, according to its position in the mind or system of an author, or in its relation to the leading controversies of the age. It must show when a dogma was held strictly and when loosely ; when disconnected from a system and when embraced in a system. It must carefully guard against the error of supposing that when a doctrine was not carefully discussed by the inquisitive and dis- criminating intellect, it was not really cherished as a matter of faith. This is an error into which many have fallen. But we might as well suppose that men did not believe they had understanding until they dis- cussed the operations of this faculty, or did not trust to their senses until they invented a theory of sensa- tion. Such a history must show the Influence which councils, confessions, and systems have had upon their respective leras ; how preceding times led to such ex- positions of the faith, and subsequent times were af- fected by them. It must exhibit clearly the ruling ideas, the shaping notions in each system, and how each predominant idea has modified the component parts of the whole system. It will not neglect to no- tice the influence which national habits and modes of thought, which great civil and political changes, which the different philosophical schools have had upon the formation of dogmas ; nor, on the other hand, will it fiiil to notice how the Christian faith has itself acted upon and influenced these in its turn, if indeed the latter be not the point of view which sliould have the precedency. Such a history must finally present be- fore our eyes a picture of a real historical process just